A federal lawsuit filed on December 30th will determine whether Rutgers
University can de facto ban Christian student groups. It may set national
policy.

On campuses across North America, Christian student groups are being ordered
to either accept leaders who violate their beliefs or lose the official
"recognition" that allows them access to university funding and facilities.
The universities say the groups' exclusion of gays and non-Christians from
leadership roles is sexual and religious discrimination. The groups reply
that their membership is open to all but their leaders must hold certain
beliefs or the group will cease to be Christian.

Civil libertarians add that the non-exclusion requirement violates both
freedom of speech and freedom of association. Moreover, the universities
are targeting the leadership of Christian groups while allowing gay,
feminist, and minority groups to determine their own leaders as well as
membership. One student commented on
that his university's "Women's Resource Center" holds "a vast array of events"
from which he is explicitly barred from attending. "I was asked to
leave meetings...because my presence as straight white male was
unwelcome."

In recent months, the debate has heightened.

At Tufts University near Boston,
a Christian Fellowship was placed on probation in October. At the same time,
Central College in Pella, Illinois debated whether to strip InterVarsity
Christian Fellowship of official recognition. In both cases, the proximate
cause was the group's refusal to allow homosexuals to serve as leaders.

At Harvard,
a grant to the Harvard-Radcliffe Christian Fellowship was postponed while
administrators assessed the group. The Associate Dean stated that requiring
leaders to share the Christian beliefs was discrimination.

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill agreed. In December, three
Christian organizations were ordered to remove discriminatory language from
their constitutions or have their recognition revoked. In the wake of national
criticism, the University backed down.

Rutgers is standing by its suspension of the InterVarsity Multi-Ethnic
Christian Fellowship (IVMECF). The Christian group isn't budging either.
Its lawsuit against Rutgers is being financed by the
Alliance Defense Fund,
which supports religious organizations who conflict with government policy.
David French -- the attorney representing IVMECF -- bluntly states, "You can't
have a leader of a Christian group not be a Christian. That's nonsense."

Given that Rutgers is a state university -- as are most of those involved --
its actions may also violate its responsibility to respect the constitutional
rights of students.

Several court precedents have found that
freedom to exclude is part and parcel of "freedom of association."
Although that phrase does not occur within the constitution, Supreme Court
decisions have protected freedom of association as an aspect of the First
Amendment's protection of speech, assembly, petition for the redress of
grievances, and the establishment of religion. The protection applies
especially to "expressive" organizations -- that is, to groups dedicated
to a specific message or point of view.

For example, in Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984), the Court found that the
ability to determine membership was essential to "expressive" organizations.
Otherwise, black rights groups could be shouted down by white members, Jewish
anti-defamation groups could be disrupted by Nazis. Freedom of assembly and
free speech would be de facto denied.

But does the First Amendment protect groups with open memberships, which
impose leadership restrictions?

The most relevant case is probably Dale v. Boy Scouts of America, decided
by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in January 2000. This case addressed
whether the Boy Scouts -- an organization with relatively open membership --
could terminate a gay scoutmaster. By a narrow margin, the Court found that
groups should not be forced to include people who would significantly damage
"the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints."

Being forced to include non-Christians in its leadership would certainly
affect IVMECF's religious mission. Indeed, French claims that universities
are conditioning access to campuses "on compliance with an anti-discrimination
position that essentially tears the heart out of the religious nature of the
group."

Ironically, a victory for Rutgers might be more devastating to its
politically correct policies than a defeat. If Rutgers successfully argues
in court that no organization with "discriminatory leadership" can be
officially recognized, then it may be required to impose that same standard
on every organization. Especially those with discriminatory membership as
well. Feminist groups on rape and sexual harassment might have to admit males.
Gay groups might have to welcome straight members. And, as many males and
heterosexuals have discovered, a significant number of those groups viciously
discriminatory in both membership and leaders.

The key difference between such groups and IVMECF is honesty. Every group
must submit its bylaws and constitution for review before being officially
recognized. Politically correct groups include the standard non-discrimination
language of the university and, then, act in an exclusionary manner. Christian
groups are refusing to lie. And, so, they are "derecognized."

If Rutgers wins, all student organizations may have to apply the
non-discrimination standard not merely in words but in deeds as well.
Or be disbanded. Simply by going to court, the IVMECF has won ... whatever
the verdict turns out to be.

Some say the U.S. is already a police state. Others watch the news
for signs that their country is about to cross an indefinable line. Since
September 11, 2001, the question has become more urgent. When do roving
wiretaps, random checkpoints, mysterious "detentions," and military tribunals
cross over from being emergency measures to being the tools of a government
permanently and irrevocably out of control?

The State vs. the People examines these crucial issues. But first,
it answers this fundamental question: "What is a police state?"